DEMOGRAPHIAINTERNATIONAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
2024 EDITIONWENDELL COX

Acknowledgments“Demographics is destiny” has become a somewhat overused phrase, but that does not
reduce the critical importance of population trends to virtually every aspect of economic,
social and political life. Concern over demographic trends has been heightened in recent
years by several international trends —notably rapid aging, reduced fertility, and before
large scale migration across borders. On the national level, shifts in attitude, generationand ethnicity have proven decisive in both the political realm and in the economic fortunesof regions and states.
The Center focuses on research and analysis of global, national and regional demographic
trends and also looks into policies that might produce favorable demographic results overtime. The Center involves Chapman students in demographic research under the supervision of the Center’s senior staff. Stu-dents work with the Center’s director and engage
in research that will serve them well as they look to develop their careers in business, thesocial sciences and the arts. They also have access to our advisory board, which includes
distinguished Chapman faculty and major demographic scholars from across the country
and the world

Center for Demographics and Policy
Chapman University

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) is an independent Canadian public policy thinktank based in western Canada whose mission is to explore options for the future by undertaking research and education that supports economic growth and opportunity.
Our research aims to analyze current affairs and public policies and develop effective
and meaningful ideas for good governance and reform. We provide a platform for publicdebate and engage with the public through our numerous publications and events.
For a comprehensive collection of FCPP publications and research, visit fcpp.org

Cover image: Sydney, Australia by New Matilda (Sydney is the second most unaffordable
market in this report).
© 2024 by Center for Demographics and Policy. Center for Demographics and Policy,
Chapman University. Excerpts from this document may be made with explicit attribution of
the source.

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1
RATING MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING AFFORDABILITY������������������������ 4
1: ASSESSING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY��������������������������������������������� 5
2: THE SITUATION �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
3: INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN 2023�������������������� 8
4: THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE MIDDLE-CLASS�������������������� 15
5: THE INTERNATIONAL PLANNING ORTHODOXY AND THE
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS�������������������������������������������������� 16
6: ECONOMICS OF URBAN CONTAINMENT���������������������������������������� 18
7: ADDRESSING LAND COSTS: THE NEW ZEALAND
2024 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REFORMS���������������������������������� 20
8: TOWARD ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY���������������������������������������������� 20
SOURCES AND METHODS���������������������������������������������������������������������� 26

TABLES1. Demographia Housing Affordability Ratings��������������������������������������������������������� 6
2. Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: Totals by Market������������������������������� 8
3. Major Markets Ranked By Affordability���������������������������������������������������������������� 22
4. Major Markets by Geography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24

FIGURES
1 International House Price-to-Income Ratios��������������������������������������������������������� 5
2 Most and Least Affordable Markets by Nation����������������������������������������������������� 7
3 Home Ownership Rates��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8
4 Middle-Income Housing Affordability: Australia������������������������������������������������� 9
5 Housing Affordability Range: Australia����������������������������������������������������������������� 9
6 Middle-Income Housing Affordability: Canada�������������������������������������������������� 10
7 Housing Affordability Deterioration: British Columbia������������������������������������ 10
8 Housing Affordability Deterioration: Greater Toronto Area��������������������������� 10
9 Housing Affordability Range, Canada����������������������������������������������������������������� 11
10 Net Domestic Migration: Canada�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
1 1 Median Affordability Ratio (Earnings Based):England, Wales, and Regions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13
12 Housing Affordability: California and the U.S.���������������������������������������������������� 14
13 Housing Affordability Range: United States������������������������������������������������������� 14
14 Housing Affordability and Domestic Migration������������������������������������������������� 15
15 Housing Share of Excess Costs of Living������������������������������������������������������������� 16
16 Urban Containment Effect on Land Value����������������������������������������������������������� 18
17 Vancouver, Toronto & Winnipeg Costs����������������������������������������������������������������� 19﻿

INTRODUCTION
For two decades the Demographia International Housing Affordability report (this year authored by
Wendell Cox) has been the gold standard for people looking at the cost of housing. In those decades
the Demographia reports have become ever more critical as housing inflation has grown all aroundthe world.
Ultimately, as the report suggests, these high prices are largely the product of policies that seek tolimit growth on the periphery, which has been the usual way that cities have grown. The Demographia
report has shown that where such policies predominate, for example in the United Kingdom,
California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Zealand, Australia and much of Canada, the results
are disastrous, at least for potential homebuyers.
For us at the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, the study also has grave implications
on the prospects for upward mobility. High housing prices, relative to incomes, are having a distinctly
feudalizing impact on our home state of California, where the primary victims are young people,
minorities and immigrants. Restrictive housing policies may be packaged as progressive, but insocial terms their impact could better be characterized as regressive.
As with any problem, the first step towards a resolutions should be to understand the basic facts.
This is what the Demographia study offers, and why we are so proud to be partners with Canada’s
Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Now comes the hard part: convincing policy makers to change
directions before the new generation loses all hope of home ownership.

Joel Kotkin
Director,
Center for Demographics and Policy
Chapman University

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITYv

﻿

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Chapman University Center for Demographics andPolicy are pleased to present the 2024 edition of Demographia International Housing Affordability.
This report provides housing affordability ratings for the third quarter of 2023 for 94 major markets(metropolitan areas) in eight nations.
In its 20 annual editions, Demographia International Housing Affordability has robustly documented
the deterioration of housing affordability. Housing affordability measures necessarily relate the costsof housing to income. Demographia uses the median multiple, a price-to-income ratio that divides themedian house price by the median household income.
Because housing is usually the most expensive element of household budgets, this deterioration has
been the principal driver of the present cost of living crisis affecting the middle and working classes.
Generally, housing affordability is worse, and the cost of living is higher, where land use regulation is
the most restrictive at the housing market (metropolitan area) level.
Coming out of the turbulence of the COVID-19 lockdowns, housing affordability remained severely
challenged across most markets in 2023 with slightly increasing unaffordability in major Canadianmarkets surveyed. In some smaller markets, there have been improvements as remote working(telework) continues to accelerate movements to more affordable places. This should flatten or evenreduce prices in the highest-cost housing markets as other households seek less costly housing
elsewhere.
There is a genuine need to substantially restore housing affordability in many markets throughout thecovered nations. In Canada, policy makers are scrambling to “magic wand” more housing but continue to mostly ignore the main reason for our dysfunctional costly housing markets – suburban land
use restrictions.

Peter Holle
President
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
203-2727 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3J 0R22024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

vi

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This annual report assesses housing affordability in 94 major markets
across eight nations (Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, New Zealand,
Singapore, United Kingdom and the, United States). The 2024 edition
focuses on data from the third quarter of 2023.
KEY POINTS
Ratings: The report uses a median price-to-income ratio (“median multiple”) to determine
affordability.
Affordability Categories: Housing markets are rated from “affordable” to “impossibly unaffordable” based on their median multiple (Table (ES-1).
Geography: Housing markets are labormarkets (which are also metropolitan
areas or functional urban areas), largely
defined by the “commuting shed.”
Housing affordability comparisons canbe made, (1) between housing markets(such as a comparison between Adelaide
and Melbourne) or (2) over time within
the same housing market (such as
between years in Adelaide).

Table ES-1
DEMOGRAPHIA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RATINGS
Housing Affordability RatingAffordable
Moderately Unaffordable
Seriously Unaffordable
Severely Unaffordable
Impossibly Unaffordable

Median Multiple
3.0 & Under
3.1 to 4.0
4.1 to 5.0
5.1 & 8.9
9.0 & OverMedian multiple: Median house price divided by median household income

Variations within Nations: The report emphasizes that affordability often varies significantly
between markets within the same country. National averages aren’t always representative.
Housing affordability in 2023 is summarized by affordability in Table 3 and by geography in
Table 4.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

1

Executive Summary

Table ES-2
Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: Totals by Market
NationAffordable Moderately Seriously
Severely
Impossibly(3.0
Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable Total&Under)(3.1-4.0)(4.1-5.0)(5.1 - 8.9)
(9.0 &Over)MedianMarketAustralia
CanadaChina: Hong Kong
Ireland
New ZealandSingapore
United Kingdom
United States

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
1
2
11

0
1
0
1
0
0
12
23

2
2
0
0
1
0
9
17

3
2
1
0
0
0
0
5

5
6
1
1
1
1
23
56

9.7
5.6
16.7
4.8
8.2
3.8
5.0
4.8

TOTAL

0

15

37

31

11

94

5.0

In the US, the most affordable market was Pittsburgh (PA), with a median multiple of 3.1,
followed closely by Rochester (NY) and St. Louis (MO-IL) at 3.4, with Cleveland (OH) at 3.5.
Rounding out the most affordable ten markets also includes one Canadian market, Edmonton,plus Buffalo (NY), Detroit (MI), Oklahoma City (OK) at 3.6, Cincinnati (OH-KY-IN) and Louisville(KY-IN) at 3.7. Singapore at 3.8 was also moderately unaffordable, along with, in the UK,
Blackpool and Lancashire, and Glasgow at 3.9.
The least affordable market in the English-speaking world in 2023 was Hong Kong, with a
median multiple of 16.7, followed by Sydney at 13.3, Vancouver at 12.3, San Jose (CA) at 11.9,
Los Angeles at 10.9, Honolulu at 10.5, Melbourne at 9.8, San Francisco and Adelaide at 9.7, San
Diego and 9.5, and Toronto at 9.3.

THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS:CAUSES AND A PATH FORWARD
Middle-income households face rapidly escalating housing costs, which is the primary cause of
the present cost-of-living crisis. For decades, home prices generally rose at about the same rate
as income, and homeownership became more widespread. But affordability is disappearing in
high-income nations as housing costs now far outpace income growth. The crisis stems principally from land use policies that artificially restrict housing supply, driving up land prices andmaking homeownership unattainable for many.
Urban containment policies (greenbelts urban growth boundaries, densification) are designed
to limit sprawl and increase density. While well-intentioned, these policies severely constrict theland available for housing. In constrained markets, higher land values translate to dramaticallyhigher house prices.

ECONOMIC DYNAMICS
Land values naturally increase closer to urban centers. Urban containment policies are associated with abrupt value spikes at established boundaries. Research confirms this, finding land2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

2

Executive Summary

prices inside urban containment boundaries can be 8-20 times higher than outside.

NEW ZEALAND’S REFORMS: A MODELNew Zealand provides a hopeful path forward. Recognizing the crisis is rooted in high land
values, new policies are proposed to open up sufficient land to accommodate demand.

A FOCUS ON PEOPLE, NOT PLACESThe housing crisis demands prioritizing the well-being of people over abstract planning ideals.
The planning orthodoxy, while aimed at improving cities, has worsened affordability. This undermines the economic opportunity essential for thriving middle- and lower-income households.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

3

Executive Summary

DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY: 2024 EDITIONRATING MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING AFFORDABILITY“

One thing I can say with confidence, however, is that house
prices will not return to more affordable levels until land
becomes available at more reasonable prices.”1‑ Reserve Bank of New Zealand Governor Donald Brash (1988-2002)
2

Demographia International Housing Affordability rates middle-income housing affordability
in 94 major housing markets in eight nations: Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, New Zealand,
Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The 2024 edition rates housing affordability for the third quarter of 2023 (September quarter). This is the 20th annual edition in theseries. The 2016 edition was featured in the International Montary Fund Global Housing Watch
newsletter.

Aerial view of housing and lakes Victoria Australia, Robert Lynch

1
2

Governor Brash, Introduction to the 4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2008).
Demographia International Housing Affordability provides analysis similar to the major market analysis in the 16
editions of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, co-authored by Wendell Cox and HughPavletich (2005 to 2020).
2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

4

1: Assessing Housing Affordability

1: ASSESSING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Sometimes, housing affordability is evaluated simply by comparing house prices. However,
without consideration of incomes, housing affordability cannot be accurately assessed. Housing
affordability is house prices in relation to incomes.
Demographia International Housing Affordability uses a price-to-income ratio, the “medianmultiple” to rate middle-income housing affordability. The median multiple is a price-to-income
ratio of the median house price divided by the gross median household income. Price-to-income
3
ratios have been widely used, such as by the World Bank, the United Nations, the Organization
for International Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Joint Center for Housing Studies at
Harvard University and others. Median price and income measures better reflect the economic
impacts on middle-income and lower-income households, as opposed to averages, which are4
skewed upward by the inclusion of the highest incomes and prices.

AFFORDABILITY: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In a well-functioning market, median priced houses should be affordable to middle-income
households, as they were in virtually all markets before the inception of more restrictive land use
policies, especially urban containment. Only a few markets had adopted such policies by the1970s, with many more to follow. As late as about 1990, national price-to-income ratios were“affordable,” at 3.0 or less in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, andthe United States (Figure 1).

RATINGS
1 International House Price-to-Income Ratios

Middle-income housing affordability
has been rated in four categories,
ranging from the most affordable(“affordable”) to the least affordable(severely unaffordable), for the first
19 annual Demographia International
Housing Affordability editions.

With this 20th annual edition, we add
a new category, “impossibly unaffordable,” which will apply to markets witha median multiple triple or more the “affordable” standard (3.0) which predominated in most3
4

The Housing Indicators Program, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/
Resources/336387-1169578899171/rd-hs7.htm. Also see Shlomo Angel, Housing Policy Matters: A Global
Analysis. Oxford University Press, 2000.
The median multiple has been criticized for not taking into account other factors that can affect housing affordability, such as interest rates, mortgage availability, and housing quality. However, these factors tend to vary little
between markets within nations. Moreover, the historic, pre-urban containment median multiples were remarkably similar even between the nations in the Demographia series (Section 1).
2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

5

1: Assessing Housing Affordability

geographies only three decades ago.
The term ‘impossible’ was selected to convey the extreme difficulty faced by middle-income
households in affording housing at a median multiple of 9.0. This level of unaffordability did notexist just over three decades ago. Furthermore, securing financing for a house at this medianmultiple is largely impossible for middle-income households (Table 1).
Many international housing affordability
comparisons are at the national level. Thisis understandable, with much of the business press focusing on national housing
affordability indicators. However, there
remain substantial differences in housing
affordability between housing markets
in the same nation . For this reason,
Demographia focuses at the housing
market level within nations.

Table 1
DEMOGRAPHIA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RATINGS
Housing Affordability RatingMedian Multiple

1. DEMOGRAPHIA HOUSING
Affordable
3.0 & Under
AFFORDABILITY
RATINGS
Moderately
Unaffordable
3.1 to 4.0
Seriously Unaffordable
Severely Unaffordable

4.1 to 5.0
5.1 & OverMedian multiple: Median house price divided by median household income

Housing markets are synonymous with labor markets and correspond to metropolitan areas,
broadly defined by their commuting zones. While some analyses use city-specific affordability
data, these often represent only a segment of housing market, with cities being sub-components, often representing a relatively small percentage of the entire metropolitan areas.
In Demographia International Housing Affordability, core cities (core municipalities) encompass entire metropolitan areas only in Auckland, Hong Kong, Honolulu, and Singapore. Anotherexception is Greater London, with its huge greenbelt, with three times the land area of London’surbanization. Greater London is considered a housing market, as are the London exurbs (East of
England and Southeast England) beyond the greenbelt.
All of the other 89 markets encompass multiple local jurisdictions, including core municipalities
and other local government areas.
Our analysis prioritizes the market as a whole over these sub-market segments.
Demographia International Housing Affordability treats Greater London, which is a municipality,
as a housing market because of the fact that it is a distinctively different functional urban area
(built-up urban area) with virtually no continuous urbanization between it and the outer suburbs(East of England and Southeast England).

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

6

2: The Situation

NATIONAL AND HOUSING MARKET AFFORDABILITY
The differences between markets can be substantial even within nations (Figure 2).
For example, among the major housing markets covered in this edition, theleast unaffordable housing market inAustralia (Perth) is at least 50% more
affordable than the most unaffordable market (Sydney). In Canada, theleast unaffordable housing market(Edmonton) is at least two-thirds
more affordable than the of the most
unaffordable market (Vancouver). In
the United Kingdom, the least unaffordable housing market (Blackpool& Lancashire and Glasgow) is at least
50% more affordable than the of the most unaffordable market (London ). The least unaffordable
housing market in the United States (Pittsburgh) is nearly 75% more affordable than the most
unaffordable market (San Jose).
2 Most and Least Affordable Markets by Nation

2: THE SITUATION
During the pandemic, the increase in remote work (working at home) fueled a demand increaseas many households were induced to move from more central areas to suburban, exurban andeven more remote areas. The result was a demand shock that drove house prices up substantially, as households moved to obtain more space, within houses and in yards or gardens.
In the United States, the hours of work performed at home are now reported to be four times
that of pre-pandemic 2019. Indeed, after at least six decades of unsuccessfully seeking to
reduce the use of cars in commuting, the latest data shows an unprecedented decline in automobile miles driven from pre-pandemic levels.
Research by John Mondragon at the Federal Reserve Bank and Johannes Weiland at the5
University of California , San Diego estimated that nearly two-thirds of the US house priceincrease in the demand shock could be attributed to the shift to remote work.

5

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30041/w30041.pdf

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

7

3: International Housing Affordability in 2023

Home Ownership: There is substantial variation in the home ownership rates of the covered
geographies (Figure 3). The highest home ownership rate is in Singapore at 89%. Ireland ranks
second at 70%, with Canada at 67%, Australia and the United States at 66%, New Zealand at 65%
and the United Kingdom at 63%. Hong Kong has the lowest home ownership rate at 51%.

3 Home Ownership Rates

3: INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN 2023
There was a general improvement in housing affordability in 2023, but not enough to restore themore affordable pre-pandemic situation (2019 and before). The number of severely unaffordable markets dropped from 52 to 42 (made up of 31 severely unaffordable and 11 impossibly
unaffordable), with seriously unaffordable markets increasing from 29 to 37 and moderately
unaffordable markets increasing from 13 to 15.
Table 2
Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: Totals by Market
NationAffordable Moderately Seriously
Severely
Impossibly(3.0
Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable Total&Under)(3.1-4.0)(4.1-5.0)(5.1 - 8.9)
(9.0 &Over)2. HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
RATINGS
BY5
0
0
0
2
3
1
1
2
2
6
NATION: 00TOTALSBY MARKET
0
0
0
1
1

MedianMarketAustralia
CanadaChina: Hong Kong
Ireland
New ZealandSingapore
United Kingdom
United States

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
2
11

1
0
0
12
23

0
1
0
9
17

0
0
0
0
5

1
1
1
23
56

9.7
5.6
16.7
4.8
8.2
3.8
5.0
4.8

TOTAL

0

15

37

31

11

94

5.0

Details on housing affordability for all 94 markets, displayed by median multiple, are provided inTable 3 and by geography in Table 4.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

8

3: International Housing Affordability in 2023

Australia: Australian markets have a median multiple of 9.7, having deteriorated from 6.9 in2019. This represents an increase of 2.8 years of median household income, in just three years.
All five of Australia’s major housing markets have been severely unaffordable since the early
2000s or before.
Sydney has the least affordable market, with an impossibly unaffordable median multiple of
13.8, making it the second least affordable market internationally (ranking 93rd in affordability
out of 94 markets) (Figure 4). Sydney has had the first, second or third least affordable housingof any major market in 15 of the last 16 years.
Melbourne, with a impossibly unaffordable median multiple of 9.8, is the 88th least affordable of
the 94 markets. Even far less renown Adelaide had an impossibly unaffordable median multipleof 9.7, ranked 86th among the 94 markets. Three other markets were severely unaffordable:
Brisbane at 8.1, ranked 80th, while Perth at 6.8, was the 75th least unaffordable market.
The range between the most affordable and least affordable markets has grown from 2.0
median multiple points in 1981 to 7.0 median multiple points 2023 (Figure 5), the equivalent of afive times incomes increase over the period (see Table 2).

4 Middle-Income Housing Affordability: Australia

5 Housing Affordability Range: Australia

Canada: The markets in Canada have a median multiple of 5.6, up from 4.4 in 2019. Four of thesix markets in Canada are rated severely unaffordable. There has been a considerable loss of
housing affordability in Canada since the mid-2000s, especially in the Vancouver and Toronto
markets (Figure 6). In contrast, there had been no deterioration in housing affordability inToronto from 1971 to 2004 --- more than three decades.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

9

3: International Housing Affordability in 2023

6 Middle-Income Housing Affordability: Canada

7 Housing Affordability Deterioration: British
Columbia

Vancouver is the least affordable in Canada
and the third least affordable of the 94 markets, with an impossibly unaffordable medianmultiple of 12.3, making it more unaffordable
than all markets except Hong Kong andSydney. Vancouver has been the first, secondor third least affordable major market for eachof the last 16 years. The median multiple hasslightly deteriorated from the pre-pandemic
11.9 in 2019.

8 Housing Affordability Deterioration: Greater
Toronto Area

Troublingly, impossibly unaffordable housing in the Vancouver market has also has spread tosmaller BC markets in British Columbia, such as Chilliwack, the Fraser Valley, Kelowna, and markets on Vancouver Island. From 2015 to 2023, housing affordability worsened by the equivalentof 2.5 years of median household income in smaller markets outside Vancouver, an even greaterloss than the 1.2 years in the Vancouver market itself (Figure 7, above).
Toronto is the second least affordable market in Canada and ranks 84th out of 94 markets
in international affordability, with a impossibly unaffordable median multiple of 9.3, above its
pre-pandemic median multiple of 8.6 (2019). As in Vancouver, severely unaffordable housing has
spread to smaller, less unaffordable markets in Ontario, such as Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo,
Brantford, London, and Guelph, as residents of metro Toronto seek lower costs of living outside
the Toronto market. From 2015 to 2023, housing affordability has worsened by the equivalent of
3.3 years of median household income in smaller markets outside Toronto, a greater loss thanthe 2.6 years in the Toronto market itself (Figure 8, above).
Montreal (5.8) and Ottawa-Gatineau (5.3) are also severely unaffordable. The most affordable
Canadian market is Edmonton, with a moderately unaffordable median multiple of 3.6. Calgary,with a median multiple of 4.6, was seriously unaffordable.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

10

3: International Housing Affordability in 2023

The range between the most affordable and least affordable markets has risen from 1.5 medianmultiple points in 1971 to 8.7 points in 2023. The increase is the equivalent of 7.2 years ofmedian household income (Figure 9).

9 Housing Affordability Range, Canada

10 Net Domestic Migration: Canada

NET DOMESTIC MIGRATION
There is a strong association between net domestic migration and housing affordability. Thisis illustrated by Statistics Canada data indicating that the six major metropolitan areas lost
444,000 domestic residents to other areas of the nation from 2018 to 2022. The six major
metropolitan areas had a median multiple of 7.9. Net domestic migration is strongly out of themetropolitan areas, to the census agglomerations (smaller markets) and the rest of the nation(Figure 10, above)
China: Hong Kong is the least affordable market in Demographia International Housing
Affordability, with a median multiple of 16.7, and the only market covered in China. This is an
improvement from the pre-pandemic 20.8 in 2019. the result of declining house prices andimproved incomes. Hong Kong has had the least affordable housing in each of the 13 years ofcoverage by Demographia.
China’s central government has given Hong Kong a clear responsibility to improve housing
affordability and increase house sizes, which are among the smallest in the world.
Two major projects could add substantially to Hong Kong’s housing stock. The “Northern
Metropolis,” virtually adjacent to neighboring Shenzhen would add more than 900,000 new housing units over the next two decades, with a target of more than 40% to be completed by 2032.
Another project, Lantau Vision Tomorrow would add more than 200,000 new housing units on
reclaimed islands near Hong Kong International Airport. This significant addition of housing units
could moderate Hong Kong’s still high housing costs.
Ireland: Dublin, Ireland’s sole major metropolitan area, had a seriously unaffordable medianmultiple of 4.8, slightly higher than the 2019 median multiple of 4.7.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

11

3: International Housing Affordability in 2023

New Zealand: Auckland has a severely unaffordable median multiple of 8.2. This is an improvement from the 8.6 in the last pre-pandemic year (2019). Important drivers were strong income
trends, combined with the recovery of about half of the Covid-era demand shock that occurredfrom 2019 to 2021.
Proposed New Land Use Policies: The newly elected Coalition government (National/ACT/New
Zealand First) government plans to implement a housing policy, based principally on moderating
the land costs that have skyrocketed in the urban containment policy environment over the past
30 years. This is summarized in Section 5.
Singapore: Singapore’s median multiple has improved by adjustments to account for thelongstanding and broad based first home buyer grant (initiated three decades ago). Overall,
the median multiple for the resale market of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, is amoderately unaffordable 3.8. Singapore ranks as the 11th most affordable market this year.
In the early 1960s, Singapore faced a desperate housing situation, characterized by unhygienic
slums and crowded squatter settlements. To address this, Singapore established the Housing andDevelopment Board (HDB), adopted policies to ...encourage a property-owning democracy in Singapore
and to enable Singapore citizens in the lower middle-income group to own their own homes.
This objective has been largely achieved, with Singapore’s home ownership rate at+ 90%. This isby far the highest home ownership rate among the eight nations in Demographia International
Housing Affordability. Approximately 78% of Singapore households live in HDB housing. The
2020 edition includes a description of Singapore’s housing policy (“Focus on Singapore”).
The commitment in Singapore to home ownership and housing affordability remains strong. In
his National Day Message in 2023, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reiterated Singapore’s dedication to home ownership and housing affordability:“

Decade after decade, the Government has invested heavily
to build affordable, accessible, and high-quality HDB flats
for millions of Singaporeans…Even amidst this changing
landscape, we must still ensure public housing is accessible
and affordable for Singaporeans of all income groups. We
must also keep our housing schemes fair and inclusive for all.
This is how we keep our national housing story going strong
for current and future generations. This is my Government’s
commitment to you, and we will deliver on it.”
‑ Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, 2023

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

12

3: International Housing Affordability in 2023

United Kingdom: In 2023, the United Kingdom had a median multiple of 5.0, up from 4.6 in 2019.
Among its markets, 9 were severely unaffordable, and another 10 are severely unaffordable. Twomarkets were moderately unaffordable.
London is the least affordable market
in the United Kingdom, with a medianmultiple of 8.1, ranking 80th out of
11 Median Affordability Ratio (Earnings Based):England, Wales, and Regions
94 in affordability. But unaffordability
ranges far from the capital as well.
Bournemouth & Dorset has a medianmultiple of 7.5, ranking as the 79th
least affordable, while Bristol-Bathwas at 7.0 (77th) , and the London
Exurbs (outside the greenbelt) had a
median multiple of 6.7, ranking 73rdin affordability. Plymouth & Devon,
Swindon, Northampton, Leicester &Leicestershire and the West Midlands were also severely unaffordable.
The most affordable markets were Glasgow, and Blackpool & Lancaster, with a median multipleof 3.9, tied at 12th in affordability out of 94. The United Kingdom’s long experience with urban
containment policy has seen house price increases outpacing incomes, contributing to thecurrent cost-of-living crisis.
This is illustrated in Figure 11 (above), showing the change in the Office of National Statistics
Median Affordability Ratio (median house price divided by median earnings). Over the lastquarter century (1997-2022), median house prices have increased at 2.3 times the increase inmedian wages in England and Wales.
The largest increase has occurred in Greater London, where house prices increased at 3.1 times
the rate of earnings between 1997 and 2022. In the Southwest and London exurbs (East andSoutheast), house prices rose from 2.5 to 2.7 times incomes. In the Midlands , the Northwest as
well as Yorkshire, prices rose at from 2.0 to 2.4 times incomes. The smallest increase was in the
Northeast region, with house prices rising 1.6 times earnings. In Wales, house prices increased
2.1 times the rate of earnings.
The current cost-of-living crisis in the United Kingdom has been significantly driven by thesehouse price increases.
These increases began at about the same time that the Blair Labour Government imposed aplanning target for 60% of new housing to be infill (brownfield development). This further market
distortion may have contributed to these house price increases, making regulation even more

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

13

3: International Housing Affordability in 2023

restrictive than under the existing urban containment environment.
United States: The US median multiple in 2023 was 4.8, up from 3.9 in 2019, indicating an
increase of 0.9 years of median household income since before the pandemic.

12 Housing Affordability: California and the U.S.

13 Housing Affordability Range: United States

The United States had five impossibly unaffordable markets, four of which are located in
California. San Jose was the least affordable major US housing market in 2023, with a medianmultiple of 11.9 (91st internationally). Los Angeles was the second least affordable in the US(90th internationally), with a median multiple of 10.9, ranking, while San Francisco (CA) had
a 9.7 median multiple and San Diego’s median multiple was 9.5. Honolulu was the third least
affordable, with a median multiple of 10.5 (89th internationally). Figure 12 (above left) compares
historical trends in housing affordability between California markets and other states.
There were 17 severely unaffordable markets. Miami (FL) was the least affordable, with a
median multiple of 8.1 (80th internationally), followed by New York (NY-NJ-PA) at 7.0 (77thinternationally).
Other severely unaffordable US markets were Boston, MA-NH, Seattle, WA, Riverside-San
Bernardino, CA, Denver, CO, Portland OR-WA, Las Vegas, NV, Salt Lake City, UT, Sacramento, CA,
Orlando, FL, Fresno, CA, Tucson, AZ, Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, Providence, RI-MA, Phoenix, AZ
and Milwaukee, WI.
The most affordable market was Pittsburgh (PA), with a median multiple of 3.1, (the most affordable internationally), followed by Rochester (NY) and St. Louis, (MO-IL) at 3.4 and Cleveland at 3.5.
The range between the least affordable and most affordable markets in the US was 8.8 yearsof median household income in 2023, compared to 1.7 in 1969 (Figure 13, above right). This
increase is the equivalent of 7.1 years of median household income.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND NET DOMESTIC MIGRATIONAs in Canada, there has been a strong association between severely unaffordable housing andnet domestic out-migration. This is indicated in a review of housing affordability in virtually all of
2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

14

4: The Existential Threat to the Middle-Class

the geographies of the United States, using American Community Survey affordability data from2018 to 2022 (value to income ratios).
Net domestic migration out of theseverely unaffordable markets has
increased substantially and is now by
far the highest among the affordability
categories. Between 2010 and 2015,
14 Housing Affordability and Domestic Migration
the severely unaffordable markets(value to income ratio over 5.0) an
6
net average loss of 76,000 residents
annually. This worsened to an averageloss of 315,000 between 2015 and2020 and had increased approximately
10 times, to an annual loss of 810,000
during the pandemic period in 2020
to 2022. Among the seriously unaffordable markets (value to income ratio of 4.1 to 5.0) andthe moderately affordable markets (value to income ratio of 3.1 to 4.0) in-migration increased
substantially. These areas accounted for nearly all of the net domestic migration losses in theseverely unaffordable markets. Finally, the affordable markets (value to income ratio of 3.0 orless) rose from an annual net migration loss of 171,000 to 4,000 gain annually in 2020-2022(Figure 14).

4: THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE MIDDLE-CLASS
For decades in the high-income world, a hallmark of a strong middle class was the widespreadability to own a home – house prices generally rose in line with household incomes. As late as
the 1990s, house prices were three times or less than household incomes in most, if not all, thehousing markets of New Zealand, Canada, the US, Australia, the UK and Ireland.
However, this nexus has been broken in many markets, with house prices escalating far above
household incomes (measured by the price to income ratio, or “median multiple”). Land prices
are now much more expensive, and house prices relative to household incomes have tripled inmarkets such as San Francisco, Sydney, Vancouver, Honolulu and Auckland. These early urban
containment markets have each had house prices that are the equivalent of 9 to 15 years ofhousehold income.

6

In-migrants minus out-migrants.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

15

5: The International Planning Orthodoxy and the Housing Affordability Crisis“

the middle-class faces ever rising costs relative to incomes
and...its survival is threatened.”‑ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)In Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle-Class, the OECD: “finds that the middle-class faces everrising costs relative to incomes and that its survival is threatened.” Further that “…, the cost of
essential parts of the middle-class lifestyle have increased faster than inflation; house prices
have been growing three times faster than household median income over the last two decades.”Housing is generally the most expensive item in the household budget. This trend has reduced
standards of living and increased poverty.

15 Housing Share of Excess Costs of Living

In the United States, where there is
the greatest gap between the mostexpensive and least expensive housing
markets, more than 85% of the costof-living difference between the mostexpensive markets is due to higher
housing costs (Figure 15).

Outside the United States, the same
effect can be seen in comparing priceto-income ratios over time among theimpossibly unaffordable markets, suchas the last five decades in Vancouver
and Sydney, the last three decades in Auckland, Melbourne and Adelaide and the last two
decades in Toronto.

5: THE INTERNATIONAL PLANNING ORTHODOXY AND
THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISISOver the last half-century, urban planners have successfully managed to shape housing policies
implemented to reflect their visions. Fundamentally, these policies seek to stop the expansion ofurban areas (sprawl) and increase urban population densities. This international planning orthodoxy relies on urban containment, with its strategies of greenbelts, urban growth boundaries,
rural zoning (large lot zoning) on urban peripheries and compact city policies (densification).

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

16

5: The International Planning Orthodoxy and the Housing Affordability Crisis

Urban containment, as explained by its own proponents, is contrasted with “...traditional
approaches to land use regulation by the presence of policies that are explicitly designed to7limit the development of land outside a defined urban area...” Each of these strategies reduces
the land available for development of middle-income housing in the form that most households
prefer (ground oriented, such as detached and semi-detached or row houses).
The middle-class is under siege principally due to the escalation of land costs. As land has been
rationed in an effort to curb urban sprawl, the excess of demand over supply has driven prices
up. This is consistent with economic principles. Alain Bertaud, former principal urban planner atthe World Bank, asserts that “arbitrary limits on city expansion” (such as urban growth bound8
aries and greenbelts) result in “predictably higher prices.” Moreover, rising house prices canbe driven even higher by the attractive returns from speculative activity. The net effect is thatland values and house prices have become skewed against the middle-class, whose existence
9
depends upon the very competitive land market destroyed by the planning orthodoxy.
All of the Impossibly Unaffordable Markets in Demographia International Housing Affordability
follow the “international planning orthodoxy” as do nearly all of the severely unaffordable markets. A central message of this report is that the most severe housing affordability losses haveoccurred in markets that follow the international planning orthodoxy.

789Arthur C. Nelson and Casey J. Dawkins (2004), “Urban Containment in the United States: History, Models andTechniques for Regional and Metropolitan Growth Management, “American Planning Association Planning
Advisory Service.
Bertaud, Order without Design.
Anthony Downs (1994), New Visions for Metropolitan America, Brookings Institution Press.
2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

17

6: Economics of Urban Containment

6: ECONOMICS OF URBAN CONTAINMENT
16 Urban Containment Effect on Land Value

Generally, land values in the physicalcity (built-up urban area) naturally
increase towards the urban center (all10else being equal). Urban containment
disrupts this pattern, associated withabrupt land value spikes at the edges ofareas allowed to develop, and generally
drive higher land prices throughout the11contained area (Figure 16 ).
Planning theorists Arthur C. Nelson
and Casey J. Dawkins defined urban
containment policy in an American

Planning Association Planning Advisory Service report:“

In its most basic form, urban containment involves drawing aline around an urban area. Urban development is steered tothe area inside the line and discouraged (if not prevented)
outside it.” Further, they add that, higher land prices are bothan expected and intended result.12

At the same time, proponents of urban containment expected that higher urban population densities would occur with continued population growth. Further, they did not expect that this would
13
increase housing prices.

10
11

12
13

William Alonso (1964), Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent (Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Harvard University Press).
Figure is adapted from other works dealing with urban growth boundaries. Other graphical representations of thisrelationship can be found in Gerrit Knaap and Arthur C. Nelson, The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land
Use Planning from Oregon, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992; William A. Fischel,
Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land-use Regulation, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2015; Gerard Mildner,“Public Policy & Portland’s Real Estate Market,” Quarterly and Urban Development Journal, 4th Quarterly 2009:
1-16, and others. Under traditional land use regulation, where there is no urban containment boundary, the land
price gradient would be smooth (the green line labeled “Before Urban Growth Boundary”). On the other hand, anabrupt increase occurs at an urban boundary (the red line labeled “After Urban Growth Boundary”).
Arthur C. Nelson and Casey J. Dawkins, Urban Containment in the United States: History, Models and Techniques
for Regional and Metropolitan Growth Management, American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288101674_Urban_containment
Gerrit J. Knaap, and Arthur C. Nelson, “The Effects of Regional Land-use Control in Oregon: A Theoretical andEmpirical Review, The Review of Regional Studies Vol. 18, No. 2 (1988).

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

18

6: Economics of Urban Containment

Yet, the land price increases were far too large to be neutralized by higher population densities.
Research suggests that land value spikes around UGBs, with land being 8 to 20 times more
14
costly inside urban containment boundaries than outside.
The extent to which land prices drive the final cost of houses is illustrated in Figure 17, which
compares the urban containment housing markets of Vancouver and Toronto `to the generally
liberally regulated market of Winnipeg. The estimated construction costs for a 1,500 square foothouse in Toronto were less than five percent more than that of Winnipeg, compared to a morethan nine times (900 percent) difference in land and related costs. In Vancouver, the construction
costs for the 1,500 square foot house were less than 30 percent more than that of Winnipeg,
compared to a more than 12 times (1,200 percent) difference in land and related costs.

17 Vancouver, Toronto & Winnipeg Costs

Even the OECD has raised the alarm
about urban containment andworsening housing affordability. In
Rethinking Urban Sprawl: Moving
Toward Sustainable Cities, the OECDhas warned that without sufficientdevelopable land within urban growthboundaries, housing affordability will
deteriorate. Anthony Downs of the
Brookings Institution stressed theneed to maintain a competitive land15
market to counteract this effect.

The housing affordability crisis is fundamentally a land cost issue, driven by the effects of theinternational planning orthodoxy.

14

15

Calculated from data in Mariano Kulish, Anthony Richards and Christian Gillitzer, “Urban Structure and Housing
Prices: Some Evidence from Australian Cities,” Research Discussion Paper, Reserve Bank of Australia, September
2011. http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2011/pdf/rdp2011-03.pdf and Grimes, Arthur and Yun Liang(2008). “Spatial Determinants of Land Prices: Does Auckland’s Metropolitan Urban Limit Have an Effect?” Applied
Spatial Analysis and Policy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12061-008-9010-8.
Anthony Downs (1994), New Visions for Metropolitan America, Brookings Institution Press.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

19

7: Addressing Land Costs: the New Zealand 2024 Housing Affordability Reforms

7: ADDRESSING LAND COSTS: THE NEW ZEALAND 2024
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REFORMS
New Zealand’s newly formed National/ACT/New Zealand First coalition government (theCoalition) has adopted a “Going for Housing Growth” based upon the understanding of the
housing affordability as a land cost problem. They cite research showing that urban growthboundaries alone add a staggering NZ$600,000 (US$370,000) to the cost of land for houses on
Auckland’s edges.
“Going for Housing Growth” will seek to ensure abundant developable land within and aroundcities, preventing the artificial scarcity that drives up prices. This is in contrast to housing affordability policies that are limited to densification strategies.
A key part of “Going for Housing Growth” is to require local authorities to immediately zone for30 years of housing growth. This prevents using sequential development, which would perpetuate the tight land market created by containment policies.
To finance infrastructure needs, the Coalition will utilize the funding mechanism (Special
Purpose Vehicles or SPVs), as authorized by the 2020 Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act.
This allows developers or public agencies to finance infrastructure costs, repaid by beneficiaries
over a period of up to 50 years. This model, often known as Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs)
has been proven in Texas and Colorado, with their municipal utility districts. This takes away theburden of infrastructure finance from local authorities.
Finally, the National coalition has withdrawn its support for the densification-only program
enacted under the previous government. Densification will now be an optional tool for local
authorities.

8: TOWARD ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Legendary urbanist Jane Jacobs provided the ultimate test of planning: “If planning helps people,
they ought to be better off as a result, not worse off.” Yet, the planning orthodoxy, with its principal strategy of urban containment has been associated with worsened housing affordability. To
state the obvious, this makes people worse off.

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

20

8: Toward Economic Opportunity

The threat to the middle-class and the deterioration of opportunity for lower income householdsby the planning orthodoxy is real. Rebecca Cavicchia of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences(NMBU), Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norway, noted that Oslo house prices
increased nearly three times that of wages in 17 years of densification policy and suggested that
trade-off between zero sprawl policy (densification) and housing availability could arise.
Indeed. A trade-off that sacrifices housing affordability for densification is evident in the geographies covered by Demographia International Housing Affordability. Similar policies have been
associated with greater inequality, deteriorated middle-income living standards and greater
poverty.
The intensity of the housing affordability crisis suggests that we must reorient current policies on land use and focus on the most fundamental objective: what is good for people. PaulCheshire, Max Nathan, and Henry Overman of the London School of Economics suggest that:“the ultimate objective of urban policy is to improve outcomesfor people rather than places; for individuals and families
rather than buildings.

‑ Paul Cheshire, Max Nathan, and Henry Overman of the London School of Economics

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

21

TABLES

Table 3
3. MAJOR MARKETS RANKED
BY AFFORDABILITY
HOUSING MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: MOST AFFORDABLE TO LEAST AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2023: Third Quarter
MedianMultiple

Rank

Pittsburgh, PA

3.1

U.S.

Rochester, NY

2

U.S.

4

Rank

NationMetropolitan Market

1

U.S.

2

MedianMultiple

NationMetropolitan Market

48

U.K.

Greater Manchester

5.0

3.4

48

U.K.

Nottingham

5.0

St. Louis,, MO-IL

3.4

48

U.K.

Warrington & Cheshire

5.0

U.S.

Cleveland, OH

3.5

48

U.S.

Charlotte, NC-SC

5.0

5CanadaEdmonton, AB

3.6

48

U.S.

Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV

5.0

5

U.S.

Buffalo, NY

3.6

53

U.K.

West Midlands

5.2

5

U.S.

Detroit, MI

3.6

53

U.S.

Milwaukee, WI

5.2

5

U.S.

Oklahoma City, OK

3.6

55

CanadaOttawa-Gatineau, ON-QC

5.3

9

U.S.

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

3.7

56

U.S.

Phoenix, AZ

5.4

9

U.S.

Louisville, KY-IN

3.7

57

U.K.

Leicester & Leicestershire

5.5

11

Singapore

Singapore

3.8

58

U.S.

Providence, RI-MA

5.6

12

U.K.

Blackpool & Lancashire

3.9

59

U.S.

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL

5.7

12

U.K.

Glasgow

3.9

59

U.S.

Tucson, AZ

5.7

12

U.S.

Tulsa, OK

3.9

61

CanadaMontreal, QC

5.8

15

U.S.

Indianapolis. IN

4.0

61

U.S.

Fresno, CA

5.8

16

U.K.

Middlesbrough & Durham

4.1

61

U.S.

Orlando, FL

5.8

16

U.S.

Columbus, OH

4.1

61

U.S.

Sacramento, CA

5.8

16

U.S.

Grand Rapids, MI

4.1

61

U.S.

Salt Lake City, UT

5.8

16

U.S.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

4.1

66

U.K.

Northampton

5.9

20

U.K.

Newcastle

4.2

67

U.K.

Swindon

6.2

20

U.S.

Chicago, IL-IN-WI

4.2

67

U.S.

Las Vegas, NV

6.2

20

U.S.

Hartford, CT

4.2

69

U.S.

Portland, OR-WA

6.4

20

U.S.

Kansas City, MO-KS

4.2

70

U.K.

Plymouth & Devon

6.5

20

U.S.

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

4.2

70

U.S.

Denver, CO

6.5

20

U.S.

Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD

4.2

70

U.S.

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

6.5

26

U.K.

Liverpool

4.3

73

U.K.

London Exurbs

6.7

26

U.K.

Sheffield

4.3

73

U.S.

Seattle, WA

6.7

26

U.S.

Atlanta, GA

4.3

75

Australia

Perth, WA

6.8

26

U.S.

Baltimore, MD

4.3

75

U.S.

Boston, MA-NH

6.8

30

U.K.

Stoke on Trent & Staffordshire

4.4

77

U.K.

Bristol-Bath

7.0

30

U.S.

Birmingham, AL

4.4

77

U.S.

New York, NY-NJ-PA

7.0

30

U.S.

Houston, TX

4.4

79

U.K.

Bournemouth & Dorset

7.5

30

U.S.

New Orleans. LA

4.4

80

Australia

Brisbane, QLD

8.1

30

U.S.

Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC

4.4

80

U.K.

Greater London

8.1

35

U.K.

Edinburgh

4.5

80

U.S.

Miami, FL

8.1

2024 DEMOGRAPHIAINTERNATIONAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
2021 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY| FEBRUARY
2021

22

TABLES

Table 3, contd.
HOUSING MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: MOST AFFORDABLE TO LEAST AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2023: Third Quarter
NationMetropolitan Market

MedianMultiple

Rank

35

U.S.

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

4.5

35

U.S.

San Antonio, TX

38Canada39

Rank

MedianMultiple

NationMetropolitan Market

83

N.Z.

Auckland

8.2

4.5

84

CanadaToronto, ON

9.3

Calgary, AB

4.6

85

U.S.

San Diego, CA

9.5

U.K.

Derby & Derbyshire

4.7

86

Australia

Adelaide, SA

9.7

39

U.K.

Leeds

4.7

86

U.S.

San Francisco, CA

9.7

39

U.S.

Richmond, VA

4.7

88

Australia

Melbourne, VIC

9.8

42

IrelandDublin

4.8

89

U.S.

Honolulu, HI

10.5

42

U.K.

Hull & Humber

4.8

90

U.S.

Los Angeles, CA

10.9

42

U.S.

Jacksonville, FL

4.8

91

U.S.

San Jose, CA

11.9

45

U.S.

Austin, TX

4.9

92

CanadaVancouver, BC

12.3

45

U.S.

Nashville, TN

4.9

93

Australia

Sydney, NSW

13.8

45

U.S.

Raleigh, NC

4.9

94

China

Hong Kong

16.7

2024 DEMOGRAPHIAINTERNATIONAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
2021 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY| FEBRUARY
2021

23

TABLES

Table 4
4. MAJOR MARKETSBY GEOGRAPHY
ALL HOUSING MARKETS BY NATIONMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2023: Third Quarter
MedianMultiple

Rank

Adelaide, SA

9.7

Australia

Brisbane, QLD

88

Australia

75

Rank

NationMetropolitan Market

86

Australia

80

MedianMultiple

NationMetropolitan Market

35

U.K.

Edinburgh

4.5

8.1

12

U.K.

Glasgow

3.9

Melbourne, VIC

9.8

26

U.S.

Atlanta, GA

4.3

Australia

Perth, WA

6.8

45

U.S.

Austin, TX

4.9

93

Australia

Sydney, NSW

13.8

26

U.S.

Baltimore, MD

4.3

38

CanadaCalgary, AB

4.6

30

U.S.

Birmingham, AL

4.4

5

CanadaEdmonton, AB

3.6

75

U.S.

Boston, MA-NH

6.8

61

CanadaMontreal, QC

5.8

5

U.S.

Buffalo, NY

3.6

55

CanadaOttawa-Gatineau, ON-QC

5.3

48

U.S.

Charlotte, NC-SC

5.0

84

CanadaToronto, ON

9.3

20

U.S.

Chicago, IL-IN-WI

4.2

92

CanadaVancouver, BC

12.3

9

U.S.

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

3.7

94

China

Hong Kong

16.7

4

U.S.

Cleveland, OH

3.5

42

IrelandDublin

4.8

16

U.S.

Columbus, OH

4.1

83

N.Z.

Auckland

8.2

35

U.S.

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

4.5

11

Singapore

Singapore

3.8

70

U.S.

Denver, CO

6.5

12

U.K.

Blackpool & Lancashire

3.9

5

U.S.

Detroit, MI

3.6

79

U.K.

Bournemouth & Dorset

7.5

61

U.S.

Fresno, CA

5.8

77

U.K.

Bristol-Bath

7

16

U.S.

Grand Rapids, MI

4.1

39

U.K.

Derby & Derbyshire

4.7

20

U.S.

Hartford, CT

4.2

80

U.K.

Greater London

8.1

89

U.S.

Honolulu, HI

10.5

48

U.K.

Greater Manchester

5

30

U.S.

Houston, TX

4.4

42

U.K.

Hull & Humber

4.8

15

U.S.

Indianapolis. IN

4.0

39

U.K.

Leeds

4.7

42

U.S.

Jacksonville, FL

4.8

57

U.K.

Leicester & Leicestershire

5.5

20

U.S.

Kansas City, MO-KS

4.2

26

U.K.

Liverpool

4.3

67

U.S.

Las Vegas, NV

6.2

73

U.K.

London Exurbs

6.7

90

U.S.

Los Angeles, CA

10.9

16

U.K.

Middlesbrough & Durham

4.1

9

U.S.

Louisville, KY-IN

3.7

20

U.K.

Newcastle

4.2

20

U.S.

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

4.2

66

U.K.

Northampton

5.9

80

U.S.

Miami, FL

8.1

48

U.K.

Nottingham

5

53

U.S.

Milwaukee, WI

5.2

70

U.K.

Plymouth & Devon

6.5

16

U.S.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

4.1

26

U.K.

Sheffield

4.3

45

U.S.

Nashville, TN

4.9

67

U.K.

Swindon

6.2

30

U.S.

New Orleans. LA

4.4

30

U.K.

Stoke on Trent & Staffordshire

4.4

77

U.S.

New York, NY-NJ-PA

7.0

53

U.K.

West Midlands

5.2

5

U.S.

Oklahoma City, OK

3.6

48

U.K.

Warrington & Cheshire

5.0

61

U.S.

Orlando, FL

5.82024 DEMOGRAPHIAINTERNATIONAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
2021 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY| FEBRUARY
2021

24

TABLES

Table 4, contd.
ALL HOUSING MARKETS BY NATIONMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2023: Third Quarter
MedianMultiple

Rank

Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD

4.2

U.S.

Phoenix, AZ

1

U.S.

69

Rank

NationMetropolitan Market

20

U.S.

56

MedianMultiple

NationMetropolitan Market

35

U.S.

San Antonio, TX

4.5

5.4

85

U.S.

San Diego, CA

9.5

Pittsburgh, PA

3.1

86

U.S.

San Francisco, CA

9.7

U.S.

Portland, OR-WA

6.4

91

U.S.

San Jose, CA

11.9

58

U.S.

Providence, RI-MA

5.6

73

U.S.

Seattle, WA

6.7

45

U.S.

Raleigh, NC

4.9

2

U.S.

St. Louis,, MO-IL

3.4

39

U.S.

Richmond, VA

4.7

59

U.S.

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL

5.7

70

U.S.

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

6.5

59

U.S.

Tucson, AZ

5.7

2

U.S.

Rochester, NY

3.4

12

U.S.

Tulsa, OK

3.9

61

U.S.

Sacramento, CA

5.8

30

U.S.

Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC

4.4

61

U.S.

Salt Lake City, UT

5.8

48

U.S.

Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV

5.0

2024 DEMOGRAPHIAINTERNATIONAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
2021 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY| FEBRUARY
2021

25

SOURCES AND METHODS | AUTHOR BIO | CONTACTS

SOURCES AND METHODSHouse price data is estimated from sources reporting on housing types representing the
majority of existing dwellings in each nation. Official government produced sales registers areused where available (Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales). Other sources include authoritative
real estate time series and market reports. Pre-tax median household incomes for the present
year are estimated based on official government data.

AUTHOR
Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, a St. Louis based international public policy consulting firm and a senior fellow of the Center for
Demographics and Policy. He is author of Demographia World Urban Areas,
the only regularly published resource for the population, land area andpopulation densities of world urban areas.
Cox was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission (LACTC) by Mayor Tom Bradley and was
appointed by US House of Representative Speaker Newt Gingrich to complete the term of New
Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman on the Amtrak Reform Council. He has served as avisiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (CNAM), a national university
in Paris and as vice-president of CODATU, a France based research organization dedicated to
improving transportation in developing countries. He holds a BA in Government from California
State University, Los Angeles and an MBA from Pepperdine University in Los Angeles.

CONTACTS:
Demographia
Wendell Cox, Principal
demographia@gmx.com
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
David Leis, Vice-President
david.leis@fcpp.org
Joel Kotkin
Center for Demographics and Policy
Chapman University

2024 DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL
HOUSINGINTERNATIONAL
AFFORDABILITYHOUSING| MARCH
2024
2024 DEMOGRAPHIAAFFORDABILITY

26